The Great Global Warming Poll

[jaa]

You are making an incorrect assumption about how many of us come to our conclusions.

That scientists know the truth but aren't telling the population? If you have to resort to conspiracy, your on flimsy ground. Again, with priors like that you can believe anything you want. That's why conspiracy theories are so rampant in the first place.

If you really believe that then why are you listening to anything Ray has to say, as most of what he recommends is refuted by the majority of the experts, including his denial of man made global warming.

I think we've been over this, but I'll lay out my position again:

1) Human biochemistry is a lot more complex and studies are limited and much more prone to error than studying less complex systems like climate or physics.
2) I don't take Ray's word for gospel. I experiment with some of his ideas and take what I find useful and discard the rest.

I think it's strange that you want to throw out all of modern science (or at least the stuff you disagree with) on the basis of Ray might get some things right about nutrition that the mainstream gets wrong. That's a bad idea and ties into my initial criticism of you that your line of thinking that you want to cry ad hominen about.

 

[x-ray peat]

That scientists know the truth but aren't telling the population? If you have to resort to conspiracy, your on flimsy ground. Again, with priors like that you can believe anything you want. That's why conspiracy theories are so rampant in the first place.
I think we've been over this, but I'll lay out my position again:
1) Human biochemistry is a lot more complex and studies are limited and much more prone to error than studying less complex systems like climate or physics.
2) I don't take Ray's word for gospel. I experiment with some of his ideas and take what I find useful and discard the rest.
I think it's strange that you want to throw out all of modern science (or at least the stuff you disagree with) on the basis of Ray might get some things right about nutrition that the mainstream gets wrong. That's a bad idea and ties into my initial criticism of you that your line of thinking that you want to cry ad hominen about.

Well at least you stopped with the ad hominems, but now it seems you have resorted to cherry picking a few ancillary comments out of context and completely mischaracterized what I said. So again:
"We are not substituting our "non-expert opinion" for that of scientists but rather weighing the multitude of opinions from many scientists and deciding who is making the better argument based on the facts."

So if you don't have anything factual or science based to promote your global warming theory then lets just stop this silliness. I don't see much point in continuing if you are just going to completely twist my words and now cry out conspiracy theory as if that is a real argument.

 

[jaa]

Well at least you stopped with the ad hominems,

Nothing I said was any different so this makes no sense. Either there were no ad hominems in my initial comment (correct) or there were. There wasn't a stopping of anything. You're still leaning on that.

So you take back that you think the scientists are just flat lying now? Or is it still a grand conspiracy?

 

[x-ray peat]

So you take back that you think the scientists are just flat lying now? Or is it still a grand conspiracy?

If you would stop wasting everyone's time with your baseless rhetoric and actually look into what the skeptic scientists are saying you may actually realize that there is absolutely no basis to think that man-made CO2 is causing global climate change. It is one big fraud and an obvious one at that. That is why I think that most scientists realize this but are too scared to speak the truth. The same can be said for Doctors who don't speak out against chemotherapy, or who prescribe statins, or tell you to use corn oil. If you think that everything promoted by science is the truth than you have bigger problems than your belief in this global warming nonsense.

Why don't you watch the Dr Tim Ball video posted above and see what real climate scientists on the other side have to say. Watching and posting videos by non climate scientists as you did in another thread will not get you anywhere near the truth.

 

[jaa]

If you would stop wasting everyone's time with your baseless rhetoric and actually look into what the skeptic scientists are saying you may actually realize that there is absolutely no basis to think that man-made CO2 is causing global climate change. It is one big fraud and an obvious one at that. That is why I think that most scientists realize this but are too scared to speak the truth. The same can be said for Doctors who don't speak out against chemotherapy, or who prescribe statins, or tell you to use corn oil. If you think that everything promoted by science is the truth than you have bigger problems than your belief in this global warming nonsense.

Why don't you watch the Dr Tim Ball video posted above and see what real climate scientists on the other side have to say. Watching and posting videos by non climate scientists as you did in another thread will not get you anywhere near the truth.

Alarm bells went off the first 30 seconds into that video, so I looked him up.

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

The man is a fraud and a creationist. And this is who you hold up as your bastion of science? No, I'm not going to watch that video because it's an obvious waste of time. It comes down to priors again. Who is more likely to have an accurate model of how the universe works in this domain. Tim Ball? Or the real climate scientists? It's possible the Elron Hubbard is right about scientology and the history of humanity, but you'd have to be out of your mind to give his ideas much credence. The man was a poor science fiction writer and a fraud. That just makes his unbelievable story all that much more unbelievable. The same goes for Ball.

 

[x-ray peat]

Alarm bells went off the first 30 seconds into that video, so I looked him up.

Tim Ball - RationalWiki

The man is a fraud and a creationist. And this is who you hold up as your bastion of science? No, I'm not going to watch that video because it's an obvious waste of time. It comes down to priors again. Who is more likely to have an accurate model of how the universe works in this domain. Tim Ball? Or the real climate scientists? It's possible the Elron Hubbard is right about scientology and the history of humanity, but you'd have to be out of your mind to give his ideas much credence. The man was a poor science fiction writer and a fraud. That just makes his unbelievable story all that much more unbelievable. The same goes for Ball.

Well I guess that brings us full circle to my original point that AGW believers would rather engage in character assassination and personal attacks rather than having to face a few inconvenient facts challenging their theory. It’s no accident that Al Gore also refuses to engage in any serious debate on climate change. Of course it’s much easier to make your money by brainwashing a Nation rather than engaging in an open debate that may actually get at the truth.

That site and the many other hit pieces on Dr. Ball is standard operating procedure used to keep the people in ignorance and inoculate them from any troublesome truth tellers. I do find it kind of sad for our world that people can fall for such blatant and disingenuous hit pieces.

As just one example, Professor Ball is not a creationist. He has rightly pointed out that Darwinian evolution has become such a sacred cow that you can’t even mention that there might be a few problems with it, kind of like climate change. Ray btw has also taken the same stance on both these issues, climate change and Darwinian evolution.

I found this quote on Dr. Ball's website which you may find of interest.

“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.” Michael Crichton.

 

[jaa]

Well I guess that brings us full circle to my original point that AGW believers would rather engage in character assassination and personal attacks rather than having to face a few inconvenient facts challenging their theory. It’s no accident that Al Gore also refuses to engage in any serious debate on climate change. Of course it’s much easier to make your money by brainwashing a Nation rather than engaging in an open debate that may actually get at the truth.

That site and the many other hit pieces on Dr. Ball is standard operating procedure used to keep the people in ignorance and inoculate them from any troublesome truth tellers. I do find it kind of sad for our world that people can fall for such blatant and disingenuous hit pieces.

As just one example, Professor Ball is not a creationist. He has rightly pointed out that Darwinian evolution has become such a sacred cow that you can’t even mention that there might be a few problems with it, kind of like climate change. Ray btw has also taken the same stance on both these issues, climate change and Darwinian evolution.

I found this quote on Dr. Ball's website which you may find of interest.

“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.” Michael Crichton.

The site says he appears to be some sort of creationist. Based on the two quotes provided, that seems accurate. He elevates religious wisdom while denigrating scientific wisdom (strangely while calling it a religion).

But OK, may I went a little too far in classifying him as a creationist. I did that. Not the website. The point in the lines above still stand.

And you conveniently left out comments on the fraudster claims.

I've attacked the arguments put forth by these bastions of truth you hold up. I've also attacked their character, because their character matters. It helps explain their poor arguments and gives you a prior reason to distrust them. You don't for strange reasons. You are metaphorically taking the words of a rambling homeless man on the origin of the universe over real physicists. This stuff matters, and if these are the kinds of people you hold up as fighting the good fight it should raise a lot of alarms. It shouldn't make you want to hide behind ad hominen accusations as if that bolsters your position by showing the character of the individuals you go to for information does not matter

 

[x-ray peat]

The site says he appears to be some sort of creationist. Based on the two quotes provided, that seems accurate. He elevates religious wisdom while denigrating scientific wisdom (strangely while calling it a religion).

But OK, may I went a little too far in classifying him as a creationist. I did that. Not the website. The point in the lines above still stand.

And you conveniently left out comments on the fraudster claims.

I've attacked the arguments put forth by these bastions of truth you hold up. I've also attacked their character, because their character matters. It helps explain their poor arguments and gives you a prior reason to distrust them. You don't for strange reasons. You are metaphorically taking the words of a rambling homeless man on the origin of the universe over real physicists. This stuff matters, and if these are the kinds of people you hold up as fighting the good fight it should raise a lot of alarms. It shouldn't make you want to hide behind ad hominen accusations as if that bolsters your position by showing the character of the individuals you go to for information does not matter

Actually the website you linked to does claim he is a Creationist. Their proof, a couple of quotations on the cult of Darwin and environmentalist dogma that I, Ray and lots of informed people on this site also agree with :

”Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.”

”Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the biblical views on nature, human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including modern environmentalism.”​

The fraudster claims are just more lies to denigrate him. He was a Professor of Climatology at a prestigious Canadian university yet they want to quibble about exactly how many years he was a professor even though many of the people they listen to were never professors of anything. They claim he was only a Professor in the Geography Department without explaining that climate science was originally the domain of the Geography departments. I looked at his CV and the vast majority of his papers are either in peer reviewed journals or on behalf of government committees concerned with the climate. Saying that hardly any of his papers were in scientific journals is just a blatant lie.

How you can call Professor Ball a homeless man because he has some thoughts that are unsettling to you is beyond me. I could easily post videos by many other skeptical full Professors but I don't see much point as you would just link to the hit pieces on them.

What you want to believe doesn’t really matter to me but for your own sake you may wish to not be so rigid in your opinions that you purposely avoid any challenging ideas. I too used to believe fully in AGW but eventually I became curious enough to see what the other side had to say. You can do it too. It's not that hard.

After all the only guaranteed way to stay in ignorance is to insist that your already know the truth.

 

[jaa]

The fraudster claims are just more lies to denigrate him. He was a Professor of Climatology at a prestigious Canadian university

LIES

He wasn't a professor of climatology. He was a professor of geography. Here's his CV.

And you can read excerpts of the lawsuit here. His papers aren't published in legitimate journals and there is compelling evidence he's paid by Exxon Mobile. There are blurbs on the rational wiki and lawsuit about that.

And the University of Winnepeg isn't a prestigious Canadian university. It's a middling one at best.

You're shooting yourself in the foot defending this fraud. Find a new spokesman. This one is greasy.

 

[x-ray peat]

LIES

He wasn't a professor of climatology. He was a professor of geography. Here's his CV.

And you can read excerpts of the lawsuit here. His papers aren't published in legitimate journals and there is compelling evidence he's paid by Exxon Mobile. There are blurbs on the rational wiki and lawsuit about that.

And the University of Winnepeg isn't a prestigious Canadian university. It's a middling one at best.

You're shooting yourself in the foot defending this fraud. Find a new spokesman. This one is greasy.

When you cherry pick the points you only wish to respond to you tend to miss some key information that would prevent you "from shooting yourself in the foot."
Specifically climate science has originally been the domain of Geography. I think you need to update your ideas of what constitutes geography from what you may have learned in 6th grade. Here is the first page of papers from his CV. They are all climate related. Also note that his PhD is in Climatology.

Significant Publications

"The Nitty Gritty of Winnipeg Air", Prairie Forum, Fall 1977, pp. 32-47

"Comparative Air Quality in Urban and Suburban Environments of Winnipeg", Manitoba Environmental Research Council Annual Publication, Project #33, 1975, p. 15

"An Assessment of the Urban Heat Island as a Potential Energy", Manitoba Environmental Research Council Annual Publication, Project #34, 1975, p. 12

"As Cold As Ever I Knew It. Manitoba Climate for the Last 200 Years" Historical and Scientific Society of Manitoba Transactions, Series III, Number 33, 1976-77, pp. 61-66

"Analysis of Historical Evidence of Climatic Change in Western and Northern Canada," Syllogeus, Climatic Change in Canada 2, Editor, C.R. Harington, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, 1981, Vol. 33, pp. 78-96

Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, England, p. 480

"The Migration of Geese as an Indicator of Climate Change in the Southern Hudson Bay Region Between 1715 and 1851", Climatic Change, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1983a, pp. 83-93

"Climate and History: A Connection that Cannot be Ignored", History and Social Science Teacher, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 1984, pp. 205-214

Selected Climatological Data from Hudson's Bay Company Records for the Period 1718- 1939 at Churchill, Manitoba, Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario, 1984, p. 132

Selected Climatological Data from Hudson's Bay Company Records for the Period 1714- 1913 at York Factory, Manitoba", Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario, 1984, p. 174

 

[jaa]

When you cherry pick the points you only wish to respond to you tend to miss some key information that would prevent you "from shooting yourself in the foot."
Specifically climate science has originally been the domain of Geography. I think you need to update your ideas of what constitutes geography from what you may have learned in 6th grade. Here is the first page of papers from his CV. They are all climate related. Also note that his PhD is in Climatology.

Dude is a liar. He lied about being the first PhD climatologist in Canada and one of the first in the world. He lied about how long he was a professor for. He lied about his doctorate (claimed in was in science even though it was in philosophy (PhD)) and he lacked proper citation to exclude primary authors from his CV. And he lies about his relevant expertise. You can read the defense put forth by Dr. Johnson to get more of an idea about Dr. Ball's character including a catalogue of mistruths perpetuated by Dr. Ball about himself. Not surprisingly, the suit was quickly dropped.

 

[x-ray peat]

Dude is a liar. He lied about being the first PhD climatologist in Canada and one of the first in the world. He lied about how long he was a professor for. He lied about his doctorate (claimed in was in science even though it was in philosophy (PhD)) and he lacked proper citation to exclude primary authors from his CV. And he lies about his relevant expertise. You can read the defense put forth by Dr. Johnson to get more of an idea about Dr. Ball's character including a catalogue of mistruths perpetuated by Dr. Ball about himself. Not surprisingly, the suit was quickly dropped.

Shouldn't there be a limit to how many untruths I have to refute before you just admit your sources may be wrong? This will be the last one I respond to but it is probably the most important one for you to know; a PhD is not a degree in philosophy.

 

[jaa]

Shouldn't there be a limit to how many untruths I have to refute before you just admit your sources may be wrong? This will be the last one I respond to but it is probably the most important one for you to know; a PhD is not a degree in philosophy.

Misdirection again. I understand why you're doing ignoring Dr. Ball's lies in our chat, but I wonder if it changes your opinion on him at all? Those statements by Dr. Johnson and the subsequent drop of the lawsuit are pretty damning, no? Or does it not matter as long as the message is what you want to hear?

I know a PhD isn't a degree in philosophy. It's a doctor of philosophy. Ball had his PhD in the field of climatology from the University of London . He claimed he had a doctor of science which is a higher doctorate in the UK than PhD. Just another one of Ball's lies about himself to make himself seem more prestigious.

 

[x-ray peat]

Misdirection again. I understand why you're doing ignoring Dr. Ball's lies in our chat, but I wonder if it changes your opinion on him at all? Those statements by Dr. Johnson and the subsequent drop of the lawsuit are pretty damning, no? Or does it not matter as long as the message is what you want to hear?

I know a PhD isn't a degree in philosophy. It's a doctor of philosophy. Ball had his PhD in the field of climatology from the University of London . He claimed he had a doctor of science which is a higher doctorate in the UK than PhD. Just another one of Ball's lies about himself to make himself seem more prestigious.

OK maybe one last time. It's not a misdirection to point out that every slander you have heaped on this guy has been refuted. Can you at least admit that.

Here are a few: he is a creationist; he is not a real climate scientist; he isn't a professor of climatology; he is a professor of geography; his degree is not in climate science; he doesn’t publish in scientific journals; he is a fraud; he is homeless; he is a liar.

And btw using the deposition of a guy who is being sued for libel is not exactly an unbiased source of information on Dr Ball. Moreover libel lawsuits are very hard to prove and usually not worth it, so it’s not surprising it was dropped.

But finally I haven’t seen anywhere that Dr Ball has claimed he has a D.Sc. This is a degree given to experienced reseaerchers or as an honorary degree in the UK and not to recent graduates. It is also the equivalent to a PhD in many other countries. Regardless his CV clearly states that he has a PhD (Doctor of Science) which is not the same as claiming a D.Sc. but just another way of listing one's degree. Google “PhD (Doctor of Science)” and you will see how many other professors are also using that exact terminology for their PhD.

Again every single person who has tried to expose the climate change hoax has been tarred and vilified. If you are that susceptible to these hit pieces you will never learn anything not state approved. I guess Ray has somehow kept a low enough profile not to get a similar treatment.

BTW I find it kind of hypocritical that you are attacking this guy's credentials so relentlessly when you posted a video from a non Professor non climate scientist as an expert in climate science.

Here is another documentary you may find less objectionable. Of course this movie has also been relentlessly attacked as well. That doesn't mean that it isn't trying to tell you the truth. Of course the fact that Dr Ball is one of the many scientists interviewed may be a deal killer for you.

 

[jaa]

he is a creationist

I've said that may not be the case, but quotes for him are certainly suggestive. I already reformed my opinion to one where he likely a creationist or has creationist sympathies.

The site says he appears to be some sort of creationist. Based on the two quotes provided, that seems accurate. He elevates religious wisdom while denigrating scientific wisdom (strangely while calling it a religion).

But OK, may I went a little too far in classifying him as a creationist. I did that. Not the website. The point in the lines above still stand.

he is not a real climate scientist

Insofar as we're talking about the human effects of global warming, this point still stands. The court case clarifies this.

he isn't a professor of climatology;

He wasn't. He had a Ph.D. in climatology, not undergrad degress, and wasn't a professor in the subject. Again, read the court documents.

he is a professor of geography

He was.

his degree is not in climate science

They weren't. His doctorate was.

he doesn’t publish in scientific journals

I never said that. He didn't publish frequently about climate and he never published in a peer review journal about greenhouse gasses and climate change. To get an idea why, you can read the following post on how confused he is on the topic.

Timothy Ball | Skeptical Analysis

he is a fraud

He is. He lied on his CV repeatedly. He also lied to Paul Martin about his credentials when he was an MHA. Again, check the court documents.

he is homeless

I never said that. Though I'm not surprised you misread my metaphor given all the above misunderstandings.

he is a liar

This is without question and I've shown in multiple times. Just read paragraph 12 in Dr. Johnson's statement.

I'm not reading the rest of your post if you don't take time to actually read what I wrote otherwise this is an even bigger waste of time. The fact you can get through all of what I wrote and still be convinced he's not a liar is astounding. You're either ignoring it or just hitting reply without reading what I wrote.

 

[x-ray peat]

I'm not reading the rest of your post if you don't take time to actually read what I wrote otherwise this is an even bigger waste of time.

It's not surprising that you wouldn't want to watch the other documentary I posted. There are about 10 new scientists you would have to smear and that would take some effort. Of course there is also the risk that you may learn something new.

 

[jaa]

It's not surprising that you wouldn't want to watch the other documentary I posted. There are about 10 new scientists you would have to smear and that would take some effort. Of course there is also the risk that you may learn something new.

It has to do with time. Why would I waste it on someone who is going to have such an dishonest discussion? You're just talking past me and then offering up another distraction. I address your points and try to put out one fire and you ignore it and start one somewhere else. It's like whack-a-mole. It's a fruitless debate because you refuse to stay on point. If you engaged in a way that indicated you were interested in getting at the truth I would continue this because that's what I'm trying to get at as well and I think it would be fruitful. But this game where you have me run around trying to put out your endless fires is exhausting and idiotic. You can't have expected me to want to keep it up for long.

I've laid out my evidence for my claims against Dr. Ball. If you want to refute them, fine, I'll continue this discussion. I'm not chasing you around on all your tangents though. If you want to terminate the discussion on Dr. Ball, but still want to discuss climate change, I'm open to that as well. I'm not going to play whack-a-mole any more though. Pick your best guy. Your best evidence. I'll watch and debate that if you'd like, but no more tangents.

 

[x-ray peat]

It has to do with time. Why would I waste it on someone who is going to have such an dishonest discussion? You're just talking past me and then offering up another distraction. I address your points and try to put out one fire and you ignore it and start one somewhere else. It's like whack-a-mole. It's a fruitless debate because you refuse to stay on point. If you engaged in a way that indicated you were interested in getting at the truth I would continue this because that's what I'm trying to get at as well and I think it would be fruitful. But this game where you have me run around trying to put out your endless fires is exhausting and idiotic. You can't have expected me to want to keep it up for long.

I've laid out my evidence for my claims against Dr. Ball. If you want to refute them, fine, I'll continue this discussion. I'm not chasing you around on all your tangents though. If you want to terminate the discussion on Dr. Ball, but still want to discuss climate change, I'm open to that as well. I'm not going to play whack-a-mole any more though. Pick your best guy. Your best evidence. I'll watch and debate that if you'd like, but no more tangents.

It is precisely the opposite and I'll leave it to anyone who has suffered through this tedium to decide who has been the dishonest one. Here is just one example of your equivocating.

I said you falsely claimed "his degree is not in climate science"
and you said "They weren't. His doctorate was."
lol

edit: and I just checked, his BA and MA are in Geography where for the third time is where many Universities have their climate science departments.

 

[jaa]

It is precisely the opposite and I'll leave it to anyone who has suffered through this tedium to decide who has been the dishonest one. Here is just one example of your equivocating.

I said you falsely claimed "his degree is not in climate science"
and you said "They weren't. His doctorate was."
lol

If that's the best rebuttal you have against my litany of claims against Dr. Ball it's quite telling.

 

[x-ray peat]

If that's the best rebuttal you have against my litany of claims against Dr. Ball it's quite telling.

ok, now you are just embarrassing yourself. I have already refuted everyone of the baseless slanders you have cut and pasted from the Alarmist thought police.